‘NOVA’: Mind Over Money

Posted on Mar 17, 2012

PBS NOVA

Groundbreaking research done by behavioral economists may pose the greatest academic threat ever to free-market theory, suggesting that emotions linked to brain chemistry—not rational self-interest—play a deciding role in how we spend, save and invest.

Experts argue the findings should profoundly reshape economic policy. Watch the introduction to a “NOVA” special on the subject below, then follow the links to see the full 53-minute piece. —ARK

What a crock to begin with. Here is something sponsored by
goldman sachs, david koch and some other private entity about
their favor thing money. Money is one of the biggest hoaxes
played on people along with religion, government and the
benefits of the agricultural age. Money is something people will
covet as it appears to give them special privileges up until the
time money won’t buy the food they need and the water to drink.
My favorite fantasy is an alien species landing on earth in the
distant future and finding all the remains of humans with paper,
gold, diamonds, gems stuffed their mouth as if thery were trying
to eat it to stay alive. Thing is, money is the most mismanaged
thing around for a planet full of people in different societies and
nations. If the greed that inflicts far too many people did not
exist, money then could be used as a ‘legal tender’ or barter but
it just won’t be like that, especially when jerks like milton
friedman come up with arcane theories on how to have
‘unfettered global markets’. That is like having all the ‘money’
sitting on the floor in a secure building and then just opening
the doors so anyone can come in and take what they want. No,
this being sponsored by goldman sachs and david koch is the
point to realize it is just another attempt to hypnotize people
through what was a publicly trusted source of information but is
not sullied with the taint of goldman sachs and koch and other
private industries pushing their agendas. Sad to see NOVA come
down to this.

It is seldom if ever that human behavior/motivation
is taken into account when constructing grand
economic, political or social systems. (Communism,
fore instance, never took into account human behavior
which, of course, spelled its ultimate demise as a
workable system.)

Ever wondered, fore instance, why men go into
politics? It has been argued that they are driven to
seek power because it has a lot of sexual energy.
Or, another way of saying it is that they want to get
laid and they know men with power get laid - a lot.

And gerard - you’re right. It’s always been about
winning, and it has been known for years that its
always been about winning. Like zillions of other
(book-promoting/selling) theories, these constant
‘revelations’ are more often than not old news.

I think there has to be one more factor to consider
in this line of thought, which is that not everyone’s
self-interest is the same and predetermined.

Is it not “rational self-interest” to behave in such
a way that makes one stimulated and engaged?

For instance, some people are wired/conditioned to
derive immense satisfaction from gambling. Is it
not, then, in their ‘rational’ self-interests to do
what stimulates and satisfies them? What if the
emotional thrill of gambling is the peak of genuine
enjoyment they get out of life? Would it not then be
rational for them to do what is necessary for them to
attain satisfaction in such a way (even if it is
considered “irrational” by someone else’s definition
of it)?

This is not news. No one believed in rational self interest until the Rockefeller endowed Friedman/Hayek clan of economic cave bears in Chicago pushed out this political propaganda masquerading as economic theory. The assumption made for easily discernible economic modeling, and yet much of the rational interest theory was mathematically upset by Stiglitz long ago. Understand that this tripe was never believed in classic economic theory. It was rejected out of hand over and over again. Only when gobs of money was thrown at establishing free market theory as orthodox economics did this nonsense gain some traction. And just as much mullah was thrown at repressing Keynesian theory in nearly every university and think tank setting.

The silly attack on the “free market” presented above
is a non sequitur: the idea of a free market is that
it’s inappropriate to use coercion to force people to
engage in certain economic activities, not that people
should engage in any specific activities. This perhaps
sheds new light on how people would act in a freed
market, but says nothing for or against the
desirability of having one.

“...suggesting that emotions linked to brain chemistry—not rational self-interest—play a deciding role in how we spend, save and invest. “
In other words, much simpler and to the point. it’s all about winning! So what else is new?